4 12. Data collection Data sources Data limitations on the AODT Court pathway Issues with the JAX database 103 Summary Overall views on the AODT Court Assessing and strengthening AODT Court s implementation 107 Bibliography 110 Tables Table 1: Sample achieved for stakeholders and providers 11 Table 2: Sample achieved for AODT Court participants and whānau 12 Table 3: Demographic profile of those appearing for the AODT Court Determination Hearing 36 Table 4: Reasons for defendant being declined entry to AODT Court from Determination Hearing 39 Table 5: Demographic profile of those accepted into the AODT Court 40 Table 6: Demographic profile of those currently in the AODT Court as at December Table 7: RoC*RoI scores for those currently in the AODT Court as at December 2013, who are not facing EBA driving charges 65 Table 8: Demographic profile of those terminated from AODT Court 98 Table 9: RoC*RoI scores for those terminated from AODT Court, who are not facing EBA driving charges 98 Figures Figure 1: Process for acceptance to the AODT Court 21 Figure 2: Number of Determination Hearings and number of cases accepted into the AODT Court 37 Figure 3: Number of people in each phase by month 68 Figure 4: Number of positive test results by month 89 Figure 5: Number of cases in AODT Court and number of cases terminated over time 97 iv

5 Preface This report has been prepared for the Ministry of Justice, and was written by Lisa Gregg from Litmus Limited and Alison Chetwin (independent evaluator), with review and contributions from Liz Smith (Litmus Limited), Timothy Taotua (Integrity Professionals Limited) and Maria Marama (Māori evaluator). This document reports on findings from the formative evaluation of the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (AODT Court) pilot. Appendices for this report are contained in the Technical Appendices Report (Litmus, 2014). We acknowledge and thank all those who participated in interviews and group discussions, including AODT Court participants and their whānau. We also thank the AODT Court co-ordinator for help with the data collation and the AODT Court case managers for help with accessing court participants to interview. Thanks also go to those who provided venues for the interviews and group discussions. v

6 Glossary AA AOD AODT Court AODT Court Steering Group AODT Court Treatment Network Steering Group CADS CAG CMS Clients District Court DSM-IV EBA ESR G4S JAX Karakia Kaumātua Kuia Māori tikanga Ministry NA NHI NDCI Participant Pou Oranga Alcoholics Anonymous Alcohol and other drug Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court Wellington based steering committee made up of national level representatives from the justice and health sectors, chaired by the Ministry of Justice, District Courts representative Auckland based steering group made up of treatment provider representatives and the AODT Court judges, led by Odyssey house Community Alcohol and Drug Services Community Advisory Group; a voluntary group of community representatives based in Auckland to support the AODT Court Case Management System All those receiving alcohol and drug treatment, including AODT Court participants Refers to those courts using standard court processes Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition Driving with excess breath/blood alcohol Institute of Environmental Science and Research Provider of the electronic alcohol monitoring anklets, known as SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor) Justice Application Express, a Ministry of Justice repository for AODT Court data Māori incantations and prayers, used to invoke spiritual guidance and protection Adult, elder, elderly man, elderly woman, old man Elderly woman, grandmother, female elder Correct Māori procedure, custom, meaning, practice and convention Ministry of Justice Narcotics Anonymous National Health Index number National Drug Court Institute Offender who is part of the AODT Court Māori adviser to the AODT Court vi

7 PDS RoC*RoI SCRAM Te Whare Whakapiki Wairua Tuakana teina Tupuna Whāea Whakamana Whānau Whare kai Public Defence Service Risk of re-conviction and Risk of re-imprisonment score (a computer-based statistical model used by the Department of Corrections) Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court The relationship between an older (tuakana) and a younger (teina) person specific to teaching and learning in the Māori context Ancestor, grandparent Mother, aunt, aunty To give authority to, give effect to, give prestige to, confirm, enable, authorise, legitimise, empower Extended family, family group, a familiar term of address to a number of people. May also include friends who may not have any kinship ties to other members Dining hall vii

8 1. Executive summary The Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (AODT Court) pilot is designed to supervise offenders whose offending is driven by their alcohol and other drug (AOD) dependency, by providing judicial oversight of their engagement with treatment programmes and rehabilitation support services before they are sentenced. The desired outcomes of the AODT Court pilot are to: reduce reoffending and imprisonment; reduce drug and alcohol consumption and dependency; positively impact on health and wellbeing; and be costeffective. The Ministry of Justice commissioned this formative evaluation of the AODT Court pilot in the Auckland and Waitakere District Courts one year after its commencement in November The formative evaluation has drawn on observations, interviews with stakeholders and participants in both courts, and administrative data related to the pilot. Litmus Limited will also carry out a process evaluation and a cost-effectiveness study (by Sapere Research Group) over the next four years. 1.1 Summary of findings Development of the AODT Court The judiciary, the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice with support from the Ministry of Health, Department of Corrections and New Zealand Police have all contributed to the development of the AODT Court, which is part of the Addressing the Drivers of Crime work programme in New Zealand. $1.93 million per year for five years has been invested to support the pilot of the AODT Court in Auckland and Waitakere District Courts with an expectation that agencies will absorb additional operational costs. Additional funding has been provided from the proceeds of crime and from the Drivers of Crime programme to purchase extra treatment beds. The AODT Court aligns with international best practice. Distinctive New Zealand features are: the AODT Court is a pre-sentence initiative; the inclusion of Māori cultural practices; the inclusion of participants charged with driving while intoxicated; the use of case managers from the health sector and peer support workers; and the ability for participants to attend 12-step meetings. Overview of AODT Court processes The AODT Court is aimed at defendants whose offending is driven by AOD dependency. The AODT Court is a specialist District Court and operates under general legislation and judicial discretion. The AODT Court provides selected defendants, who are facing a term of imprisonment of up to three years, with an opportunity to participate in an AOD treatment programme before sentencing. Where the AODT Court is not offered, the District Court 1 process is followed. 1 In this report the term District Court refers to those courts using standard court processes. 1

9 Potential participants are identified when appearing at the Auckland or Waitakere District Courts and considered against a set of criteria. The District Court judge refers participants to the AODT Court based on a specialist alcohol and drug assessment and other information which demonstrate they meet the AODT Court eligibility criteria. Where a referral is made, the defendant s eligibility is discussed by the AODT Court team at a pre-court team meeting. Defendants must consent to participate and plead guilty to be accepted into the AODT Court. Participants are on bail while participating in the AODT Court. A treatment plan is created based on the individual s assessed treatment needs. The length of the AODT Court programme varies depending on participants needs and can last between months. The AODT Court programme has three phases. In phase 1 the focus is on intensive treatment and rehabilitation, frequent random drug and alcohol testing and court appearances. In phases 2 and 3, components of phase 1 continue, and there is increasing emphasis on vocational, educational and personal goals with the intent of securing employment, or entering study or training. The AODT Court has a system of graduated incentives and sanctions that are delivered by the court. AODT Court participants may exit the court through termination or graduation. Graduates are AODT Court participants who successfully complete all three phases of the AODT Court programme. The graduates are sentenced by the AODT Court judge and successful graduation is taken into account at that sentencing. Governance and management The AODT Court Steering Group oversees the pilot. The Ministry of Health has contracted Odyssey House to lead the provision of a comprehensive AOD assessment and treatment service. A treatment provider network is led by an AODT Court Treatment Network Steering Group. The AODT Court judges have formed an Auckland-based AODT Court Community Advisory Group (CAG) whose role is evolving. The overall governance and operational management of the AODT Court are working as intended in the pilot s design. The continuing collaboration and information sharing among the agencies represented in the initiative are seen as a key strength in the pilot s implementation. The AODT Court Steering Group is seeking more timely and informative reporting so they are aware of operational issues that require discussion at a governance level. To provide context, the AODT Court judges are seeking the opportunity to present progress reports and proposals to the AODT Court Steering Group. The AODT Court team has sought to meaningfully incorporate tikanga Māori into the court process, based on the understanding that knowledge of culture is a significant factor in bringing about change and healing for Māori. In the pilot design, the strategies to incorporate tikanga Māori into the AODT Court are restricted to the role of community Māori representatives and not a design that embeds Māori tikanga in the AODT Court. Training has increased the AODT Court team s understanding of the court, the roles of other team members, and fostered good team dynamics. Further training and induction is needed for new appointees. 2

10 Determining eligibility AOD assessments are undertaken by the Auckland Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS). The number of referrals for AOD assessment is lower than the expected 300 to 400 referrals. In the first year of the pilot s operation, 197 referrals were received by CADS for AOD assessments. There are indications that appropriate defendants are being identified and referred to CADS. 84% of referrals for AOD assessment by CADS meet the criteria for AOD dependence and are recommended for the AODT Court. CADS are seeking feedback from the AODT Court team on the selection outcome of defendants they recommended for the Court. As of December 2013, 158 people had attended a Determination Hearing at the AODT Court. Of these, 99 people (63%) were accepted into the Court (49 at Auckland and 50 at Waitakere). The evaluation was unable to assess the application of the eligibility criteria in participant selection at the Determination Hearing as there is no central record kept of this information. Feedback from the AODT Court team highlights a lack of clarity and agreement on the eligibility of offenders with violent histories, and a lack of process to review disagreements about whether an offender is eligible. The most common reasons for not accepting offenders to the AODT Court from a Determination Hearing include: violence, living outside of the geographic boundary, mental health issues, the amount of time spent in custody or likelihood of a prison sentence of less than 18 months. Before joining the AODT Court, participants had varying degrees of understanding about what would be involved in taking part in the programme, and some were dissatisfied with information received about the AODT Court. Participants described the selection process for the AODT Court as rigorous; although some noted they were anxious about whether or not they would be accepted. Participants attitudes to the AODT Court tended to evolve over time. Most commenced the programme thinking it was an easy option to avoid prison. Through their involvement in the programme, participants realised that to remain in the AODT Court required substantial commitment from them and it offered an opportunity for change. AODT Court programme The AODT Court team consists of the AODT Court judge, the case manager, the court co-ordinator, the defence counsel and the police prosecutor. The AODT Court team participates in pre-court team meetings on the morning of each sitting day and in the AODT Court hearings. The AODT Court team considers reports and shares information on each participant appearing on that sitting day. The AODT Court team is learning to work effectively together, in particular managing their roles and the new ways of communicating in a therapeutic court. Participants gave positive feedback on all roles within the AODT Court team. The AODT Court team shows good information sharing and collective commitment in the pre-court team meetings and court hearings. The team noted that care is needed to respect and value the contribution of all team members based on their areas of specific expertise and to manage the balances between judicial and therapeutic processes, particularly with regard to information sharing. 3

11 For the AODT Court case managers, the AODT Court co-ordinator, and defence counsel, their role is expanding beyond its intended focus to the detriment of their capacity to manage full caseloads. In part this reflects that some issues identified at pre-court meetings and in court hearings are not clearly allocated to a specific AODT Court team role, for example ensuring participants have appropriate social and financial supports to take part in the AODT Court. The court session is a powerful teaching and community-building activity. Participants had mostly positive reactions to the court hearing describing it as humbling, strengthbased, supportive, and encouraging. Both the pre-court team meetings and court hearings are becoming too long as caseloads increase. At December 2013, 99 participants had been accepted into the AODT Court, with 73 current participants. Further work is required to ensure the court reaches the target of 100 participants at any one time (50 in each court). Participants and whānau appreciated the use of tikanga Māori in the AODT Court; although the Māori provider hui believed that the use of tikanga is in its infancy. There is some evidence from participants that the incentives and sanctions contribute to modifications in their behaviour Participants are working through the three phases of the AODT Court with most in phase 1. The evaluation could not assess the length of time in each phase. Victim engagement Treatment Overall, victims voices are not well represented in the Determination Hearing process. The involvement of Victim Advisors has been minimal as few victims have asked to be kept informed. The court processes are evolving as participants move through the AODT Court phases. As some participants are nearing the third AODT Court phase, the processes for victim involvement in restorative justice are beginning to be thought through. The intention of the AODT Court is to introduce restorative justice processes into phase 3 of the court process. For victims however, this may be too late in the process, given there will be a long delay between the offence and phase 3. The Ministry of Health has contracted with Odyssey House as the lead provider of a comprehensive AOD assessment and treatment service to support the AODT Court pilot. An AOD Court treatment provider network has been established which is a collaboration between Odyssey House, Higher Ground and the Salvation Army. Good integration exists between the AODT Court and the treatment programmes, and the governance arrangements are working effectively. Participants who have been accepted into the AODT Court and are in custody awaiting treatment are not able to take part in the existing treatment preparation sessions. This lack of preparation can make their adjustment to treatment more difficult. 4

12 Testing There is a limited range of treatment types available in the pilot region and as a result it can be difficult to place participants in a programme that best meets their needs. Gaps identified in the existing treatment types are community-based treatments with accommodation options, residential treatment options, treatment facilities that meet the specific needs of women and of specific cultural groups, and programmes to address criminal behaviour. Participants interviewed were in the main positive about their treatment programmes as they offer a strong support network, and a strategy to prevent relapse. Treatment is not without its challenges with participants noting the need to adjust to treatment regimes. This adjustment can initially involve disruptive behaviour and absconding from the treatment programme. Peer support workers are responsible for engaging and retaining AODT Court participants in the treatment pathway, and for helping them to build and maintain support for their recovery. The peer support workers role is expanding beyond its intended scope and thus impacting on their capacity to undertake all expected tasks. There is a significant need to access well supervised, AOD-free community accommodation in a supportive and safe environment. The relevant person in the AODT Court needs to build relationships to access existing suitable community accommodation. The Wings Trust may be contracted to provide additional beds for AODT Court participants. Participation in and support from AA and NA in the AODT Court is a strength of the AODT Court pilot as 12-step meetings help participants learn how to engage with people, build relationships and then integrate back into the community. Drug use is tested randomly twice a week using a urine test at two community based clinics and at residential treatment locations. Stakeholders reported that the use of the instant urine cups for drug testing is working well as only not negative samples need to be couriered for lab testing. Alcohol is tested through Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) anklets and breath testing. The AODT Court has 30 SCRAM anklets which allow for 24-hour monitoring of alcohol consumption. Concerns have been raised about the adequacy of monitoring alcohol use after SCRAM anklets are removed. Stakeholders consider the AOD testing to be a critical area of the AODT Court process. Testing provides reliable information about participants AOD use and also acts as a deterrent to taking drugs. The majority of participants are positive about the AOD testing. Many participants reported that testing helped motivate them to stay sober, particularly in the early stages of their participation with the AODT Court. There are three main issues with the AOD testing: 1) Differing perceptions between the AODT Court and the testing providers on the timeliness and content of the information reported; 2) Queries about the consistency of testing delivered against agreed protocols in residential treatment facilities; 3) The location of community-based testing sites due to the distance participants must travel to be tested. 5

13 Exiting the AODT Court There are two ways a participant can be exited from the AODT Court: termination or graduation. As the AODT Court is one year into the pilot, there have been no graduations as no participants have reached this stage. In total, there have been 26 terminations from the AODT Court from the 99 cases accepted (26%). It is too early in the pilot to make a judgement on the termination rate. Initial indications suggest the rate looks acceptable compared to international figures. However, there are wider contextual factors that will need to be considered in making comparisons such as eligibility and termination criteria. The AODT Court team expects there will be a reasonable number of terminations from the AODT Court, given the high-risk and high-needs group targeted. There is recognition that terminations are not necessarily failures and the success of the AODT Court is not restricted to the number of graduations. Some stakeholders felt more could be in place to support the AOD recovery of those who are terminated from the AODT Court. Stakeholder opinions vary on when someone should be terminated from the AODT Court and whether appropriate sentences are imposed on those terminated. Some stakeholders felt there were cases that were afforded too many warnings when they were not demonstrating sufficient progress through a phase of the AODT Court. Given that the first graduations are expected in March April 2014, systems to support those graduating from the court are starting to be considered and developed. Data collection Data on all those considered for AODT Court at the District Court is recorded in Case Management System (CMS). The AODT Court Justice Application Express (JAX) database starts from the point a referral is made to the AODT Court for a Determination Hearing, and follows participants through the AODT Court pathway. AODT Court data is also collected through: CADS data on AOD assessments; Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) drug and alcohol testing data; case managers treatment data; New Zealand Police workforce data collected for the AODT Court roles 2. At this stage of the evaluation, the focus on the data collection has been on the JAX data system. Problems have occurred with both inputting data and obtaining reports from JAX resulting in gaps in the data reported for the evaluation. Issues with JAX seem to have occurred due to insufficient systems and workforce capacity for ensuring data quality. Overall the main data challenges are: - some incomplete and unclear data definitions which have resulted in inconsistency in interpretation and data entry across the courts - limited ongoing user training to accompany use of the database - inability to access all the data collected in aggregated form - insufficient rules loaded into JAX to ensure data accuracy, consistency, and completeness. 2 Data on New Zealand Police workforce, ESR testing, and case managers treatment data was not available for the formative evaluation. It is hoped that this data will be made available for the process evaluation as required. 6

14 1.2 Assessing and strengthening AODT Court pilot implementation Overall the implementation of the AODT Court pilot has broadly followed the intended pilot design as specified in the AODT Court handbook (Ministry of Justice, 2012b). Detailed below is an assessment of the implementation of the pilot s components together with suggested areas for strengthening implementation. Governance, operational management and training The overall governance and operational management of the AODT Court are working as intended in the pilot s design. Areas to strengthen implementation are: Ensure timely and informative reporting to the AODT Court Steering Group so they are aware of operational issues that require discussion at a governance level. Consider facilitating the involvement of the AODT Court judges at part of the AODT Court Steering Group meeting to provide context to progress reports and proposals they are putting forward. Clarify the role of tikanga Māori in the design of the AODT Court to ensure alignment between design, governance and implementation. This reflects that the pilot design takes a narrower view of the role of tikanga Māori in the AODT Court. Support ongoing training and induction for new appointees. Determining eligibility The overall process for identifying defendants and determining eligibility requires further strengthening. There is a need to: Determine the feasibility of using a checklist to record and provide evidence that participants met the eligibility criteria at the Determination Hearing. Investigate the feasibility of establishing clear criteria for offenders with violent histories. Develop a process to review eligibility decisions where there is disagreement within the AODT Court team on whether a potential participant meets the defined criteria. AODT Court programme While the AODT Court team roles are working together as intended, the scope of the key AODT Court team members roles are expanding beyond what was originally expected which is impacting on their capacity to manage increasing caseloads. Key areas to strengthen implementation are: Review the scope of the AODT Court case managers, the AODT Court co-ordinator, and defence counsel roles and responsibilities to address their current expansion and ensure they can complete their expected tasks within their current FTE and expected caseload. Determine where the responsibility for addressing participants financial and social needs (eg, their accommodation and income) to take part in the AODT Court lies. Consider an occasional team debrief to discuss implementation and the tensions inherent in roles, communications and relationships within a therapeutic court model. 7

15 The AODT pre-court team meetings and court hearings are being undertaken as intended in the pilot design. Time management practices need strengthening to reduce the length of the pre-court team meetings and AODT Court sessions. Victim engagement Treatment Testing Victim involvement is not working as intended. The key area to strengthen implementation is ensuring the intended process for victim involvement in the Determination Hearing process is followed. Treatment pathways and relationships are working as intended, although there are a number of implementation challenges to accessing timely treatment services that best meet participants needs. Key areas to strengthen implementation are: Consideration by the AODT Court Steering Group and the AODT Court Treatment Network Steering Group to determine whether there are any solutions to the identified gaps in treatment types. Review the scope of peer support workers role. There is a lack of clarity on whether the AOD testing is implemented as intended as questions have been raised over the process and quality assurance of testing. To strengthen the implementation of AOD testing: Facilitate communication between the AODT Court and ESR to agree expectations for future reporting and address the differing perceptions on the timeliness and content of the information reported. Review the quality of testing in residential treatment against AODT Court pilot design expectations. Investigate the quality of alcohol testing required at different stages in the court process to address concerns on the adequacy of twice-weekly breath testing to monitor alcohol use after SCRAM anklets are removed. Exiting the AODT Court There is insufficient information to assess the implementation of the termination process for those exited from the AODT Court against what was intended. This is an area for further investigation in the process evaluation. Strengthening data collection The lack of completeness and accuracy of data from the JAX data system is a problem for both the pilot and its evaluation. To strengthen the implementation of the pilot, a review of the AODT Court data collection and investigation into the issues identified with JAX is required to ensure the data collection is fit for purpose. 8

16 2. Introduction The Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) commissioned Litmus Limited to undertake formative and process evaluations, and a cost-effectiveness analysis 3 of the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (AODT Court) being piloted in the Auckland and Waitakere District Courts. This document reports on findings from the formative evaluation carried out in November 2013 after the AODT Court s first year of operation. 2.1 Background The AODT Court pilot is designed to supervise offenders whose offending is driven by their alcohol and other drug (AOD) dependency by providing judicial oversight of their engagement with treatment programmes and rehabilitation support services before they are sentenced. The desired outcomes of the AODT Court pilot are to: reduce reoffending reduce AOD consumption and dependency reduce the use of imprisonment positively impact on health and wellbeing be cost-effective. The AODT Court pilot is part of government s Addressing the Drivers of Crime work programme. The Drivers of Crime is a whole of government approach to reducing offending and victimisation, with a particular focus on vulnerable people, including Māori (Ministry of Justice, 2011b). The AODT Court is a key initiative in the Ministry s Statement of Intent and is expected to contribute to making communities safer by preventing crime and victimisation (Ministry of Justice, 2013). Section 3 of this report details information on the background, development and design of the AODT Court in New Zealand. Evaluations of initiatives of strategic importance, such as the AODT Court, typically inform the ongoing investment in the initiative and potentially contribute to decisions on expansion to other locations. The AODT Court pilot provides an opportunity to evaluate the drug court approach in the New Zealand context. The planned four-year evaluation enables sufficient numbers of participants to progress through the AODT Court. It allows for a study comparing the cost-effectiveness of the AODT Court with other justice system options that use treatment. 2.2 Formative evaluation of the AODT Court The first phase of the evaluation is a formative evaluation. The formative evaluation focuses on the implementation of the AODT Court after the pilot has been in operation for one year, to help strengthen and improve the pilot. 3 Litmus has sub-contracted Sapere Research Group to undertake the cost-effective analysis. 9

17 The goal of the formative evaluation is to assess how well the AODT Court has been implemented against the agreed design and whether any improvements could be made to help ensure the pilot is effective in meeting its outcomes in the longer term. The objectives of the formative evaluation are to: 1. examine the operation of the AODT Court one year after implementation 2. assess how well the AODT Court has been implemented 3. understand what can be learned from the implementation process and identify any improvements that could be made to the pilot. The Technical Appendices Report (Litmus, 2014) contains the detailed evaluation questions for the formative review. 2.3 Formative evaluation methodology Formative evaluation design The formative evaluation draws on a mixed-method evaluation approach involving immersion visits to each AODT Court and data review. Details of the design are in the project plan (Litmus, 2013). Fieldwork was undertaken between November and December Immersion visits took place at each court between November in Waitakere and November in Auckland. Observation of the AODT Court The Waitakere AODT Court was observed on Thursday 14 November and 19 December, and the Auckland AODT Court on Friday 22 November. This included the pre-court team meetings and open court session. The AODT Court judges authorised this observation. The evaluators were introduced at the start of the pre-court team meeting. Notes were taken during the observation without identifying individual cases or participants. AODT Court stakeholders and providers In total, 30 stakeholders and providers 4 were interviewed and three group discussions held across the two AODT Courts. Some participants were interviewed more than once to collect the information required. Litmus worked with the Ministry to develop a sample frame that ensured a breadth of participation of stakeholders and providers who are involved or engaged in the implementation and delivery of the AODT Court across the two courts. Table 1 details the number of interviews and group discussions undertaken by provider type. 4 Litmus exceeded the contracted expectations to deliver 24 stakeholder interviews plus three group discussions. Additional interviews were identified and included to ensure completeness of data collection. 10

18 Table 1: Sample achieved for stakeholders and providers Stakeholder/provider type Individual interviews Number Case managers 3 Community Advisory Group individual interview 1 Community Alcohol and Drug Services 2 Community Probation 2 Court staff (including the AODT Court co-ordinator) 3 Defence counsel 4 International expert 1 Judge 2 Police prosecutor 2 Peer support 1 Testing providers 4 Treatment providers 4 Victim Advisor 1 Group discussions AODT Court Steering Group (Wellington based) Community Advisory Group Māori community representatives Number 3 participants 5 participants 5 participants Total number of people 43 The AODT Court co-ordinator provided a list of names and contact details for people in the roles identified. Litmus invited stakeholders and providers to take part in an interview or group discussion during the week of the immersion visit. Further individuals were identified by participating stakeholders and providers. Face-to-face interviews were held at the workplace of the stakeholder/provider or at the court. Two interviews (and two follow-up interviews) were held over the telephone. Discussions focused on the early implementation of the AODT Court, how it was implemented, what is working well, not so well and any unintended effects of the implementation. Discussion guides covered the main evaluative areas and were tailored for each role. All interviews were audio-recorded, and notes were taken during the interview and from the audio recordings. Participants were given the opportunity to review the notes from their interviews. All interviews followed an informed consent process. Evaluation tools can be found in the Technical Appendices Report (Litmus, 2014). AODT Court participants and their whānau In total, 19 AODT Court participants were interviewed (Table 2). Three of these interviews included a whānau member or support person. In addition, one separate individual interview was held with a whānau member of a participant who was not interviewed. 11

19 Table 2: Sample achieved for AODT Court participants and whānau Individual interviews Number Waitakere AODT Court participants 10 Auckland AODT Court participants 9 Whānau or support people 4 Total number of people 23 Litmus worked with AODT Court case managers to identify potential participants. Case managers approached AODT Court participants to seek their agreement to be contacted by Litmus for the evaluation. Litmus contacted those who agreed to explain the evaluation, what was involved in participating and to ask if they would like to take part. Litmus contact with participants was either over the telephone or at the court on the day of appearance. For ease of accessing participants, priority was given to contacting those who were due to be appearing in the AODT Court during the immersion visits. Care was taken to obtain a mix of AODT participants, based on: gender ethnicity current phase in the AODT Court type of dependency residential treatment. All interviews were held face-to-face at the court on the day of appearance or at a safe community location mutually agreed by the participant and evaluator, such as at treatment providers premises. Interviews lasted between 15 and 60 minutes. No incentives were given. Transport costs were covered where interviews were not held at the court and where participants were required to travel to the venue. Discussions with participants and whānau focused on their experience with the referral to the AODT Court, the AODT Court and treatment pathways, the AOD testing and, overall, what had gone well and what could be done better. All interviews were audio-recorded and notes were taken from the audio recordings. Participants were given the opportunity to review the notes from their interviews. All interviews followed an informed consent process. The Project Lead briefed the team on interviewing and safety protocols for themselves and participants, including how to manage any disclosures of substance use or offending. See the Technical Appendices Report for the interviewer safety protocols (Litmus, 2014). Observation of a whānau hui A Litmus team member was invited to observe a whānau hui initiated by the Pou Oranga for the AODT Court and hosted at Hoani Waititi Marae. The hui included AODT participants and their whānau. It was a celebration and acknowledgement of whānau for their support to their whānau member who was a participant in the AODT Court programme. 12

20 Analysis The Litmus evaluator observed the process, listened to participants speak of the impact of the AODT Court on them and their whānau, and had the opportunity for informal conversations with some whānau members about their views of the AODT Court. This information contributed to the analysis for this report. AODT Court administrative data Litmus reviewed the AODT Court s administrative data to assess the consistency and integrity of the data being collected and recorded during the pilot. Attention was given to completeness, timeliness and fitness for purpose. Data was drawn from the Justice Application Express (JAX) 5 and Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS). Data about the AODT Court is also collected in the Court s Case Management System (CMS). This data was not available for inclusion in this report. Information was also sought on what data is being collected by New Zealand Police (workforce data), the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) (drug and alcohol testing data) and case managers (treatment data). Data on New Zealand Police workforce, testing, and treatment can be made available for later stages of the evaluation, as required. A systematic approach was applied to the analysis of the data from the immersion visits, whereby all qualitative interview and observational data is coded and grouped into concepts and categories relating to the overall formative evaluation questions. Focus was placed on understanding how the AODT Court was implemented, what was working well, what was not working well and identifying any improvements that could be made. Data was initially coded into the following topics, which reflect the broad process of the AODT Court: development of the AODT Court in New Zealand leadership, governance and management of the AODT Court (including training) determining eligibility AODT Court programme victim engagement AOD treatment AOD testing exit and terminations overall strengths and challenges of the AODT Court. Within these topics, sub-themes were identified. Where AODT Court data was available, it was included in the analysis of each topic. Critical consideration was given to AODT Court participants experiences of the AODT Court processes. 5 A Ministry data repository. 13

August 2012 Appointing duty lawyers for the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court pilot at the Auckland and Waitakere courts 1. Introduction In October 2011 the Ministers of Justice and Health announced

Bail Amendment Bill Q+A Defendants charged with serious violent and sexual offences (including murder) How is the Government changing bail rules for defendants charged murder? The Government thinks that

SPECIAL OPTIONS SERVICES PROGRAM UNITED STATES PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK February 4, 2013 1 I. Introduction The Special Options Services (SOS) Program was established in the

ABOUT THE COMMUNITY PAYBACK ORDER Introduction 1. The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) is the largest piece of legislation introduced into the Scottish Parliament by the

The Youth Drug and Alcohol Court - Get with the Program! The Youth Drug and Alcohol Court (YDAC) was established in 2000 and this year will celebrate 10 years of operation. The YDAC programme is a collaborative

Cabinet Member for Public Protection PP03 (11/12) Key Decision: Approval to Commence Procurement of Drug and Yes Alcohol Treatment Services. Part I July 2011 Report by the Interim Director Joint Commissioning

Drug Court Handbook Mission Statement Drug Courts in the 7th Judicial District will strive to reduce recidivism of alcohol & drug offenders in the criminal justice system and provide community protection

St. Croix County Drug Court Program Participant Handbook Updated: May 2014 To The St. Croix County Drug Court Program. This Handbook is designed to answer your questions and provide overall information

Research Note RN 00/91 1 November 2000 DRUG COURTS There will be a Scottish National Party debate on Drug Courts on Thursday 2 November 2000. This brief research note gives information on the background

ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS (AOD) RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMMES: SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS 2015 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 1 1. About these Service Specifications... 2 Who are these specifications for?...

CHAPTER 7 REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS I. PROBATION AND PAROLE A. Overview Both probation and parole are forms of community-based treatment of offenders and juvenile delinquents. Probation is a court-imposed

PIERCE COUNTY DRUG COURT PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK 0 WELCOME The Drug Court is an intervention program for adults who have pled guilty to a crime related to their drug or alcohol addiction. It is a cooperative

Page 1 of 5 Title Describe approaches to, and models of, addiction intervention, and contribute to the application of one model Level 4 Credits 6 Purpose People credited with this unit standard are able

ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION IN A NUTSHELL An alternative to incarceration is any kind of punishment other than time in prison or jail that can be given to a person who commits a crime. Frequently, punishments

A STRONGER RESPONSE TO FAMILY VIOLENCE Q & A Why focus on victims of family violence? The rate of family violence in New Zealand is unacceptable. There is a clear need to provide better support and protection

Fina~~26/ll Denver Sobriety Court Program Memorandum of Agreement Introduction The Denver Sobriety Court (Sobriety Court) was established in 2010 through efforts of the Crime Prevention and Control Commission

Specialty Courts 101 Developed by: National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) Presented by: Carolyn Hardin, Senior Director NDCI, March1, 2011 The following presentation may not be copied in whole or in part

Service Specification for Support Delivery of Alcohol Treatment Requirement Service Specification Document This document defines the service, including the required outcome(s) and outputs. As part of an

Page 1 of 5 Title Describe mental health and addiction issues at different life stages and support a service user at one life stage Level 4 Credits 8 Purpose People credited with this unit standard are

Service planning tool www.tepou.co.nz/letsgetrealdisability Acknowledgements Te Pou would like to thank and acknowledge Kate Hirst for undertaking the consultation and adaptation work with the disability

HANDOUT 1: Purpose and Principles of Sentencing in Canada Principles of Sentencing The Criminal Code of Canada outlines the principles and purpose of sentencing in s. 718. These principles are placed in

E.33 SOI (2009-2014) Statement of Intent Crown Law For the Year Ended 30 June 2010 Contents Foreword: Attorney-General 3 Introduction from the Solicitor-General 4 Nature and Scope of Functions 6 Strategic

Ministry of Social Development: Changes to the case management of sickness and invalids beneficiaries This is the report of a performance audit we carried out under section 16 of the Public Audit Act 2001

: Public Protection and Regimes Version P3.1 Specification for : Public Protection and Regimes Specification Document This document defines the service, including the required outcome(s) and outputs. As

Submission to the Ministry of Justice Review of the Family Court 29 February, 2012 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on issues facing the Family Court. We will be pleased to provide further comment.

Utah Juvenile Drug Court Certification Checklist May, 2014 Draft Standards followed by an R are required features of a drug court, and adherence to these standards is required for certification. Standards

Service Specification for Services In Custody Service Specification Document This document defines the service, including the required outcome(s) and outputs. As part of an SLA or Contract, the national

27 September 2012 The Director Criminal Law Review Department of Attorney General and Justice By Email: lpclrd@agd.nsw.gov.au To The Director, Re: Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2012 Intellectual

Addiction Treatment Program for the purposes of subsection (2) of section 720 of the Criminal Code WHEREAS: The justice system may help prevent criminal activity linked to addiction, through the use of

Pre-sentence work The Jersey experience Brian Heath Chief Probation Officer Jersey Probation and After Care Service www.probation.je Jersey British Channel Island close to France Area 118 sq. km.; population

Mental Health Courts: A New Tool By Stephanie Yu, Fiscal Analyst For fiscal year (FY) 2008-09, appropriations for the Judiciary and the Department of Community Health (DCH) include funding for a mental

Checklist for Juvenile Justice Agency Leaders and Managers THE FOLLOWING CHECKLIST will help your agency conduct a detailed assessment of how current policy and practice align with what research has shown

1 Leeds Drug and Alcohol Strategy and Action Plan (2013 2016) Leeds is a city that promotes a responsible attitude to alcohol and where individuals, families and communities affected by the use of drugs

s and s # Rec'd # - Text - Background 1.1 The completion of the interior of the courtroom shell attached to the South Placer Adult Complete construction of a courtroom for Correctional facility would result

MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL REPORT FOR INFORMATION Committee: Citizenship and Inclusion Overview and Scrutiny Committee Date: October 2007 Subject: Report of: The work of the Criminal Justice System Maureen

Australian ssociation Practice Standards for Social Workers: Achieving Outcomes of Social Workers Australian Association of Social Workers September 2003 Contents Page Introduction... 3 Format of the Standards...

CPD sample profile 1.1 Full name: Social Work Practitioner Youth Justice 1.2 Profession: Social Worker 1.3 Registration number: SWXXXX 2. Summary of recent work / practice I work as a front line social

The Scaled Approach and the Youth Rehabilitation Order A new approach to youth justice In November 2009, the Government s new youth community sentencing structure comes into force. The Youth Rehabilitation

TORONTO BAIL PROGRAM Cameron Brown The Toronto Bail Program is a private, non-profit, charitable organization which provides Bail Verification and Supervision services under contract to the Ministry of

SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI Administrative Office of Courts FAMILY DRUG COURT PROGRAM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Guidelines for Information Sharing related to the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003) For School Division and Young Offender Programs Personnel April 2011 Prepared by the Ministries of Education and Corrections,

REHABILITATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Executive Summary 1. The mission of the Correctional Services Department (CSD) is to protect the public and reduce crime by providing

Report to Community Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel October 2012 Item No.. Norfolk Drug and Alcohol Partnership: Drug and Alcohol Services Commissioning Project Update. Report by the Director of Community

THE NORFOLK COUNTY VETERANS TREATMENT COURT INFORMATION PACKET BRIEF INTRODUCTION Thank you for your interest in the Norfolk County Veterans Treatment Court. This packet of information is intended to provide

PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION A Restorative Justice Program as set out in the document Restorative Justice: A Program for Nova Scotia, Department of Justice, attached as Schedule "A" ("the Program"), is hereby

SUBSTANCE ABUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS WITHIN THE NEW ZEALAND PRISON SYSTEM Elizabeth Jamieson IT IS DIFFICULT TO BE PRECISE ON HOW MANY OFFENDERS END UP IN THE prison system due to their consumption of mind

PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE S CHAMBERS FAMILY COURT PRACTICE NOTE LAWYER FOR THE CHILD: SELECTION, APPOINTMENT AND OTHER MATTERS 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 The terms of this Practice Note have been settled in consultation